Loved the fact that this post didn't go where I expected it to (or at least, didn't remain there). That a book like this probably wouldn't be published today, or would be less popular today, is a point that has been made many times by many people, about many different books, TV shows, jokes, etc. But the author actually moves on from there; the observation is that even in his own opinion, the same joke isn't funny today — in fact, the equivalent thing being done today just looks “grubby”.
So it's something deeper than the usual “political correctness” debate: the question really is, what is it about the world today that trumps the hallowed British traditions of celebrating failure, of moaning, of affectionate self-mockery? Why isn't the joke funny any more, or why doesn't the mocking seem affectionate?
(He points at the malaise that exists today—it was only funny when there was some hope—but I'm not sure that's the only answer…)
Often when someone, especially a comedian, complains about “political correctness”, what they actually mean is: nobody is laughing at the same joke I told 20 years ago
Sensibilities change. The sense of what is and isn’t punching down changes. Even the appetite for punching down changes.
People who whine about “PC” always pretend like it’s the death of comedy or speech or whatever, and yet… there are younger people building great careers!
And yes, there is a real worrying erosion of free speech - but 98% these people could keep saying exactly what they’ve been saying - they’re just not getting the laughs they think they’re entitled to.
> Often when someone, especially a comedian, complains about “political correctness”, what they actually mean is: nobody is laughing at the same joke I told 20 years ago
Don't rephrase others' sentiments to suit your own narrative. Soothsayers are bullshitters.
When comedians complain about political correctness, there is no alternate meaning. They are upset that they can't tell the same jokes they told 20 years ago, to the same audiences from 20 years ago that continue to enjoy them, because external forces mob, heckle, and harass them so they cannot serve their customers...
...which conveniently provides opportunities for those younger people to "build great careers," by eliminating all legacy competition.
In any other context it'd be driving the local kebab shop owner out of town because someone with influence wants to open a salad bar in its place.
Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved it's not. It's just a critical mass of people having opinions you don't like and voicing those opinions.
If the market of ideas decides your ideas are not valuable anymore for whatever reason you're going to suffer what scarcity feels like.
> Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved
Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made.
The fact is that many people actually follow through on their desire to boycott something, to the point that it’s not a trivial branch of the population.
Taken in the fullness of its meaning, it very much shows that peoples positions and sentiments have changed.
Should we be proud that a non trivial branch of the population is apparently wedging their power to silence another part who would like to say things they don't like?
Personnaly, that doesn't sound very healthy to me.
I mean, no one cared when the shoe was on the foot. America has an information system that has one section that disconnected its viewers from other views. For decades now.
Putting pressure on people in order to destroy someone life definitely is violence, yes, especially considering the point is preventing someone from having the capacity to have a livelihood. Pushed to its logical conclusion, if it worked perfectly, it's more or less murder (or ostrasism if you want to be nice but as some vocal opponents are openly implying murder would be okay I feel founded in saying it is murder).
Violence is not limited to physical violence. The fact that this apparently eludes some is probably the most worrying part of the current American trend and I think in no small part responsible for the sorry state of the country.
Except of course, it really shouldn’t be funny according to anybody the sole fact that somebody is gay. About what most of these “comedians” arguing for. Even according to the massive amount of disinformation in this topic.
I don’t know why the author included that in the article when the distaste for self-loathing humour can have completely different causes. And also can be quite good reasons, like you cannot really do anything against those, not against the bad environment into which you’re born, and also not against being gay. But that would be against the fabricated outrage, which is enjoyed by many. Probably even by the author.
Just to mention one example that these can have reasons not suggested by disinformation (because for example, it would be against their sources): in Hungary, joking about corruption is dead. Completely. The reason is twofold: Orban stole about 30% of the whole economy in the past 15 years, and that doesn’t include the stolen cash. Also people who care, couldn’t do anything, even when some of us tried. It’s like being gay (in this context), it’s totally out of your control, and there is no chance to change it in any way. Now that I moved to somewhere with healthier democracy, I’m quite happy that I see jokes about corruption again.
comedians no longer complain about that, contemporary comedy is merely repeating the commonly accepted societal mantrae, and laughing at and trivialising opposition or criticism to or of it.
Wit, satire, and criticism are still funny, but aren't permissible.
The same phenomenon exists when people talk about the movie Blazing Saddles.
It's transgressive content worked because it was satirizing "wholesome" Wild West shows, holding up a funhouse mirror to their less-obvious absurdities and racist aspects. It was so successful, its targets don't exist anymore.
I think the difference is between, let's say, Ricky Gervais making a joke about a little boy with cancer, and Ricky Gervais making a joke about THAT little boy with cancer right there in Seat 7G. Everyone now knows these crap towns are dying.
If someone looks a bit pale and sickly, it's often considered fair game to make fun of their appearance (eat some vegetables, get some exercise etc)... Whereas if they have severe health problems it's no longer tasteful. This fact has not changed, it's basic human decency. The situation is what's changed.
This is a good question..it just occurred to me that perhaps its because its so much easier for the people who would be the target of the joke to answer back now?
Social media gives the possibility of instant reply, whereas if you publish a book in 2003 called 'crap towns' how can the so-called chavs answer back? Publish their own book? Write to the local paper?
So its a side effect of how we can all hear each other better now (for better or for worse)
Oh, that's insightful. Author could have encountered a light form of elite convergence 20 years ago when interacting with fellow writers and journalists, who probably didn't live in the blighted areas, and could take the joke on behalf of their cities. Being from a crap town is fine if you're don't live in the crappy part of town.
I'll add that the decade-long austerity measures let people know that it's actual class warfare, and it's no longer a laughing matter as it was in 2003 when it seemed fixable. Now it's clear the people in charge are not interested in fixing anything. A joke about someone's health situation is received better if the condition is treatable, but less so of they are terminal.
So it's something deeper than the usual “political correctness” debate: the question really is, what is it about the world today that trumps the hallowed British traditions of celebrating failure, of moaning, of affectionate self-mockery? Why isn't the joke funny any more, or why doesn't the mocking seem affectionate?
(He points at the malaise that exists today—it was only funny when there was some hope—but I'm not sure that's the only answer…)